Note: This article was originally published in The Technology Source (http://ts.mivu.org/) as: James L. Morrison and Frank Newman "The Technology Revolution:
An Interview with Frank Newman" The Technology Source, January/February 2003. Available online at http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034. The article is reprinted here with permission of the publisher.

For the past decade, American colleges and universities have provided
increasingly sophisticated personal computers and Web networks for faculty and
student use. The popular press and trade journals have featured discussions
about how this technology will transform education, but we have yet to see
changes on a mass scale in our approach to teaching and learning. I spoke with
Frank Newman, former president of the Education
Commission of the States and current director of
The Futures Project at Brown
University, after his presentation at the 2002
American Council on Education's annual conference in San Francisco to
explore what we might see in the future, and what it will take for technology to
truly begin to transform education.

James L. Morrison [JM]: Frank, many observers point to this year as a
watershed moment in the use of information technology tools to enhance
education. Please give us your perspective.

Frank Newman [FN]: I agree that we are at a watershed moment. Even as
technology continues to advance in its capabilities (e.g., easier to use
software or easier video streaming), we have witnessed the dot-com collapse and
its counterpart within higher education?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùin which many companies that expected to
make huge amounts of money by providing technology for teaching have backed off,
gone out of business, or shut down operations.

A number of for-profit subsidiaries of traditional nonprofit universities,
such as Virtual Temple or NYU online, have shut down. The three high-profile
companies that proposed to sell an information and communications technology
(ICT) version of complete courses?¢‚Ç¨‚ÄùCardean
University, Fathom, and
Global Education Network?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùeach have
reorganized, seeking a workable business plan. However, it is important to see
that at the same time, many online arms of traditional universities, such as the
University of Maryland, or for-profit
universities, such as the University of
Phoenix, keep right on expanding.

It would be easy to misinterpret this time as a period during which
technology has become less significant. At
The Futures Project, however, we
consider this a period of realism more than a period of backing off. Most of the
efforts that individuals or companies have abandoned were not conceived well
enough in the first place; they did not have an adequate plan or a realistic
base for what they were trying to accomplish. What we see happening across the
country now, not just in the virtual world but in classroom use of technology as
well, is a steadily growing use designed to alter the pedagogy of higher
education in stimulating and exciting ways. We see these efforts
advancing?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùstruggling, perhaps?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùbut steadily advancing nonetheless.

JM: Could you describe some of these efforts and how they use technology
to effect change?

FN: For the most promising projects right now, technology has become a
vehicle for finally revisiting aspects of pedagogy that everyone knows we could
improve if we simply applied what we already know. We know, for example, that
one of the least effective methods we can use in many academic settings is the
lecture format, but many professors continue to lecture in most or all of their
classes. Some alternatives would be to engage students in discussion, to ask
them to participate in certain learning activities as part of the educational
process, to use simulations, and, finally, to have the students teach each
other. This combination would represent a positive advance in pedagogy and
consequently in learning. Technology can make the implementation of these ideas
much easier.

There are two ways that the application of technology leads to better
pedagogy. The first is that well-designed modules, such as those produced by
Biology Labs On-Line, allow
large groups of students to try out ideas, to experiment, to actually "do"
rather than only "listen," without creating a huge workload for the faculty. As
a result, professors move toward better modes of teaching because the personal
cost of doing so is low. The second is that those teaching a virtual or online
course have found that they cannot simply move their passive lecture to the
Internet and keep student interest (students report they are often bored by
lectures in classrooms as well, but it is harder to get up and leave). As new
and more effective approaches are created in an effort to reach out to online
students, these new techniques are migrating to traditional classrooms. One
simple example is the improvement in communication in traditional classes
through the growth of online faculty-student interchanges, which first appeared
on a regular basis in online classrooms.

Few teachers or institutions will be successful in truly transforming
learning, though, unless they completely restructure their presentation and
delivery of the educational experience. If they simply add technology to their
current approach, not much will happen. If they restructure in a way that
considers technology an important and central vehicle in enhancing pedagogy,
then real, tangible changes can occur. Our estimate is that, over the next 5-6
years, we will see a significant change in which technology will begin to
penetrate seriously into the daily pedagogy of all kinds of learning
situations.

JM: Though many efforts to improve pedagogy through technology are
underway, we still do not see the kind of mass change that many have predicted.
Could you comment on why we have yet to see any substantial changes?

FN: I think there are at least a couple of reasons. First, the
development of adequate infrastructure has been slow, and, even now, the
infrastructure at many universities makes change difficult to implement. If you
attempt something a little more advanced than most current efforts, you often
expose the flaws in the system. For example, most universities and colleges
already have the Internet structure and the software to allow class discussions
online. Yet at most institutions it is not yet easy to use, nor is it available
to all students on and off campus. Most faculty members do not wish to be in a
situation where, halfway though the course, they cannot make the technology that
they have chosen work. As instructors put these systems to test, though,
universities are working through most of these difficulties. We are getting
better and better across the country.

The second aspect that slows this process is the difficulty of developing
effective software. In spite of this difficulty, we have seen remarkable
advances in specialized software programs to enhance learning. For example, many
students find abstract learning difficult and do much better when they can
visualize. To address this need, there are now visually enhanced software models
for such subjects as mathematical functions, geology, and the laws of physics.
Some subjects require repeated practice. New modules provide for medical
students remarkably realistic simulations of surgery, down to a sensation that
is strikingly similar to the sensation felt by the surgeon during the actual
procedure. Other modules?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùavailable now in a wide range of subjects?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùallow
students to return as many times as they like to material that they did not
understand in class, such as one of the many "mastering chemistry" modules
offered by vendors (e.g.,
Falcon or
MyChemClass.net). Some help students who want to probe further in depth,
such as Columbia's elegant King Lear module or the
Tufts Perseus Project. Some provide
tutoring for subjects such as math and science, including the widely used
Practical Algebra Tutor
or the MIT CyberTutor for
technical and scientific problems.

These programs are not available on a broad basis, but they are at least
beginning to appear, and they are beginning to appear across the entire range of
academic disciplines. The software is also becoming better, faster, easier to
use, cheaper, and, most importantly, more reliable. Faculty members are not
willing to put all or part of their course at the mercy of a piece of software
unless they feel that it is very reliable. It needs to be like a blackboard,
which works every time as long as you have a piece of chalk.

JM: Have any other factors prevented or delayed substantial change?

FN: Another factor holding back this process is faculty recalcitrance.
There is a much deeper issue behind this recalcitrance that we have not even
begun to address?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùthe fact that most incentive systems for faculty to use
technology are all wrong. For instance, suppose you teach geology, and I have
this marvelous module, and I can demonstrate that, if you use this module, your
students will learn more and show more enthusiasm for the material. But it still
is not in your interest to use the module. Why? Because what is in the faculty
member's interest right now is finding the easiest way to teach, not the most
effective, and the easiest way to teach does not involve using technology. There
are no rewards even if students learn more and show more excitement about your
class than other classes that do not use technology. Obviously, we need to think
more about the issue of faculty incentives for teaching and particularly for
teaching with technology. Skilled restructuring of courses often takes a
departmental effort, even a multi-departmental effort. Universities and colleges
are not good at this.

Finally, it is unclear whether a market will emerge for courses or for
modules so that they become easily available. I am skeptical about the
possibility of a market for entire courses. On the other hand, I think specific
modules will be much more likely to inspire a market. As a faculty member, am I
going to go say, "Oh, I'm using the Jones course here," or am I more likely to
say, "I'm going to use the Jones module here and the Smith module over here?"
Even if the module becomes the most important part of the course, I would still
consider it my course.

So, I would argue that we are going to see a much more mixed system of course
delivery, not simply offering courses either in the classroom or online. What
continues to emerge steadily throughout higher education is a trend toward
providing an online component in on-campus, traditional courses. Such hybrid
courses will clearly play a large role in the years to come.

JM: These are exciting prospects, Frank. What will be required to organize
and distribute visually enhanced instructional modules on a national level? What
about rights management and royalties? Will all of this be open source, as MIT
has started to promote?

FN: We have made little progress in creating channels of distribution
for these modules. Creating effective and easy-to-use modules requires people
with specialized skills?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùa faculty member for content and overall propose, a
graphic designer, a technology expert, a producer, as well as a marketing team.
The cost of creating such a team and the desirability of keeping it together as
it gains experience makes it likely that this will become a commercial activity,
not a cottage industry of interested faculty as it is now.

My bet is that a new form of textbook publisher will emerge?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùbasically a
publisher of course modules. In terms of royalties and distribution, the
scenario will probably resemble the print publishing industry: The faculty
member will provide the ideas and get royalties, whereas the module publisher
will provide the production, the distribution, and the control of intellectual
property rights.

There is a great deal of discussion about how faculty want to own the
intellectual rights to all this, but is this realistic? Suppose we decided to
create a module on a given subject?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùthe movement of the tectonic plates or the
construction of the California missions by Father Junipero Serra?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùand we began
looking for consultants. We would be mobbed by interested faculty. There will
surely be some open source exchange, but my bet is that the large bulk of module
creation will be traditional for-profit publishing.

JM: Can we use technology to improve aspects of education besides
pedagogy?

FN: Yes. For instance, we have not talked about assessment. One thing
that technology allows us to do very well is to conduct more sophisticated but
less expensive assessment. This is becoming a larger issue, as there is more and
more pressure to measure learning?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùnot how many hours of math the student has
taken, but whether the student can successfully apply mathematical knowledge to
real problems. The movement toward measuring learner outcomes is going to move
much faster because of the pressures from state governments. Unlike the case of
elementary and secondary education, where states mandated specific standards and
assessments, states have so far indicated a preference for colleges and
universities to create assessments themselves. These institutions would be wise
to accept this responsibility because, if the response is inadequate, the states
are likely to move toward mandated assessments.

While the academy has often argued that learning assessment at the collegiate
level is difficult if not impossible, several dozen institutions have been doing
it well for years; some?¢‚Ç¨‚ÄùAlverno College
and the University of Phoenix?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùhave
been measuring outcomes for decades. Recently technology has made this task even
easier. For example, the
Intelligent Essay Assessor effectively assesses composition, while other
programs measure student proficiency in critical thinking skills or in the
application of mathematics to practical problems. Current calls for
learner outcomes in Florida and Washington, and the concomitant availability of
assessment software, should facilitate the spread of technology-enhanced
assessment across the United States.

I would also offer one last point that I think will help drive this
revolution. Many people ask how we can encourage the use of technology among
older faculty members, but this is not the real issue. The most important
concern for educators today is the 12-year-old who, in about 6 years, is going
to enter a college or university. If you spend any time with 12-year-olds, you
will discover that they spend a lot of time with technology, but they use it in
a different way than we do. In a recent communication, John Seely Brown said
that people keep talking about students being technologically literate but that,
to 12-year-olds, technology literacy is not the main concern. What matters to
them is that technology is how you talk to people, how you meet people, and how
you deal with people. They play computer games that feature fabulous simulation.
They learn intuitively. We, on the other hand, are text-based learners. If we
want someone to learn a concept, then we ask him or her to read the following
270 pages and be prepared for a discussion of the text during the next class.
That is not how today's 12-year-olds learn; in fact, it is not how they do
anything. They plunge right in, and they are very successful when they do so.

As these veteran users of technology enter our institutions, we are likely to
see growing use of software modules that help transform learning?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùboth in the
traditional classroom and online. Students, increasingly used to constant
electronic communication, are already changing how and how frequently they
communicate with faculty and each other. The Internet makes student research
faster and more sophisticated, challenging the faculty role as the source of
information.

What should institutions do to prepare themselves for these changes? First
and foremost, there needs to be a campus conversation about the impact, the
promise, and the risks of technology. Second, each campus needs a faculty
support group that can provide the diverse skills and knowledge to allow faculty
to move into ever more comprehensive uses of technology. Finally, institutional
budgets need careful restructuring?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùwith the recognition that investment in
technology is not a one-time cost.

We have a revolution coming toward us, and we need to think about how we are
going to respond. It will continue to be a bumpy road in the immediate future,
but there is no turning back. The shift toward greater use of technology is not
only inexorable, it offers higher education the possibility of great gains in
our most critical task?¢‚Ç¨‚Äùlearning. We cannot simply accept that change is coming
and "tack on" the use of computers and the Internet to our current way of doing
things. We need to rethink how we teach from the ground up. Our bet is that this
will be an extraordinarily positive period for learning.

JM: Thank you, Frank, for your thoughts on the coming revolution and for
your leadership in this area.